ubernoir wrote:
however i think you need to take onboard a wider perspective than simply the party politics of the US. I believe party politics is an essential part of democracy across the world and the formation of two blocks which are themselves coalitions inevitable both in the first past the post system and in proportional representation systems.

How does this lead to the author's conclusion that one must participate in one of these parties and that failure to do so is somehow fraudulent or weak? If being independent is valid when viewed soley through the lens of American politics, how could broadening my perspective lead to the conclusion that it is invalid?

Generally, two blocks form because in a majoritarian system with a unitary executive there must be a winner who holds power, and anyone who is not part of that winner is by definition the opposition.

In America, I find can myself a part of the opposition regardless of who is in power. This is because both parties actually cut away at my interests. Both constantly press againsts civil liberties. Neither has the will to solve substantial domestic problems that this country faces. I don't suspect that the coming reign of the Democrats is any more likely to address real problems like social security solvency (which Democrats publicly pretend isn't real) or health care than the Republicans were. When they are able to find the will to act it is usually in response to phony news media moral panics or in the interest of corporate doners (intellectual property maximalism, new bankruptcy legislation).

I do not see how it can be weak to refuse to join political organizations that are alligned against my interests.

RE: Against Independent Voters - Stanley Fish - Think Again - Opinion - New York Times Blog